Get the on-chain ABI for a program, including instruction and event definitions
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"program": "<program>"
},
"name": "get_program_abi"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program | Yes | Program address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description usefully reveals what the result contains (instruction and event definitions). However, it does not discuss output format, potential errors, or whether the ABI is fetched live from chain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose and the key content of its return value. There is no redundant wording or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple: one required parameter that is fully documented, and no output schema. The description compensates by explaining what the result includes. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, 'program', is already described as 'Program address'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('on-chain ABI for a program'), and further clarifies scope by naming the included content ('instruction and event definitions'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_account, get_block, and get_transaction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes it clear when the tool should be used: whenever an agent needs the ABI for a specific program. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools operate on different resources, so there is little ambiguity about usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.